• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Radeon R9 290X Pictured, Tested, Beats Titan

R9 beats GTX 780 aftermarket ???

I need a new GPU to replace my old GTX 580 and I'm waiting for the release of R9 to take a decision.
If price will be around 600,00 euros like GTX 780 aftermarket,my doubt is : R9 will beat GTX 780 ???
 
i feel high power usage here :rolleyes:
 
Hayder_Master said:
i feel high power usage here :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

i could'nt care less so long as my psu can handle it and it oc's like a beast (TPU not EPU)but your probably wrong anyway if rumours are to be believed and this is "as" or more efficient than prior alternate vendor cards.

oh hang on you were just trollin werent you, helpful comment dude:shadedshu
 
buildzoid said:
The yields for silicon scale according to transistor count much more than the size of the silicon and the gpu will have around 40% more silicon so the yields will be a bit more than 40% lower. That's why a full gk 110 cost so much more than a gk104.
Click to expand...
Looking to learn here...

So to number of transistors within the die (chip) has more effect on what each chip costs, and more than the number of die’s they harvest form each wafer? I always thought whatever they (AMD/TSMC) feel can be create within the die is free (within limits). Unless such increase also increase the amount of discarded area between those die's, but I always figured that waste is basically accounted for by the 18% growth from each harvested candidate.

From what you're saying a GK110 which that it has less transistors is less costly to produce, even though the each physical harvested die is much larger?
 
the54thvoid said:
I'm not wrong in my suppositions.

Core size is far less relevant than what the die space comprises of. It's still reckoned to be one of AMD's biggest dies. So 28nm or not, the efficiency of the architecture is paramount.

Bioshock is also an AMD sponsored title - should play better on their hardware, not worse.

There is no point in AMD releasing a card that cannot comfortably surpass the competitors flagship. The early benches also show that the Titan beats the unnamed Radeon card in every synthetic benchmark (and I know we all know benchmarks mean nothing).

I guess we all need to see what happens on Wednesday. I'm not surprised if it beats Nvidia's greatest in most metrics. But again, clocks and maximum overhead play a huge role.

Hell, an overclocked well cooled 780 beats a stock Titan.

If I'm wrong and it doesn't hump Titan, I really hope it has a lot of headroom (some sources say it doesn't). It will be a bit dull if the two cards are close.
Click to expand...

Acording to those benchs, next gen amd is about 38% faster than 7970Ghz Ed. That's not bad considering 6970 was about 20% faster than 5870, which happens to be the same case since both where on the same node. What's the big tragedy then?
 
Casecutter said:
Looking to learn here...

So to number of transistors within the die (chip) has more effect on what each chip costs, and more than the number of die’s they harvest form each wafer? I always thought whatever they (AMD/TSMC) feel can be create within the die is free (within limits). Unless such increase also increase the amount of discarded area between those die's, but I always figured that waste is basically accounted for by the 18% growth from each harvested candidate.

From what you're saying a GK110 which that it has less transistors is less costly to produce, even though the each physical harvested die is much larger?
Click to expand...

As you increase individual die size less can be made per wafer.
As you increase transistor density the chance of a failing transistor increases as imperfections cause sections to fail completely or not perform upto speed
So density/complexity and die size x node size /maturity = price per chip to amd
 
erocker said:
I didn't like the Tahiti's XT price either but I don't know, maybe we were spoiled a little bit. I remember x850XT's, 6800 Ultra's and the like going for $500-600 bucks and then competition got fierce for a while in the pricing department.

I am hoping this happens again and Nvidia's current pricing is just the high point in a succession of peaks and valleys. Fingers crossed AMD doesn't base pricing on that structure.
Click to expand...
I was bored so I factored in inflation. $500 in 2005 (6800 Ultra) is worth $598.76 in 2013. According to this, anyway.
 
razaron said:
I was bored so I factored in inflation. $500 in 2005 (6800 Ultra) is worth $598.76 in 2013. According to this, anyway.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty spot-on. :)
 
theoneandonlymrk said:
As you increase individual die size less can be made per wafer.
As you increase transistor density the chance of a failing transistor increases as imperfections cause sections to fail completely or not perform upto speed
So density/complexity and die size x node size /maturity = price per chip to amd
Click to expand...
Agree completely with that way of stating it... What AMD has on its side at this time is maturity of process. Something that was solely missing when TSMC and AMD went with what amounted to "risk production back" in late 2011 and into 2012 to get Tahiti. I believe those same issues side-lined the GK100, while we didn't see a GK110 about till Q4 2012 as a Tesla K20 part, while Titian took till Feb 21, 2013.

I would agree if they tried this revision of architecture and on a die shrink (20Nm) it would be too much, they get it worked-out-here and then basically then spin it down to 20Nm with some other optimization through "Pirate Islands" and they minimize risk. Not like AMD did debuting a whole new GCN architecture on a die-shrink. I think the price increase for the harvested chips will be consonant if not improved. And why I maintain the rational AMD will harvest 3 true derivatives, not just a XT/LE, but more what Nvidia did with a GK104.
 
Last edited:
Allow me to put it into perspective for you, in New Zealand a Titan starts at $1890 as does a Gtx690 and a gtx780 will go for about $1350. A Radeon 7990 will set you back a cool $1190. Now with that said can you honestly say a Titan is worth that premium? If the R9 290X is priced at the 7990 price point which if I'm not mistaken is what the suit from AMD said would happen, then why would you even bother with NVIDIA products.
 
Lou007 said:
Allow me to put it into perspective for you, in New Zealand a Titan starts at $1890 as does a Gtx690 and a gtx780 will go for about $1350. A Radeon 7990 will set you back a cool $1190. Now with that said can you honestly say a Titan is worth that premium.
Click to expand...

Surely you see nvidia were and are in a hard place with titan they left dp compute performance in so could only price it so low without quadro buyers feeling ripped yet there only plan now involves a whole new process paradym shift ie tsv connected edram onto a v hot typically gpu , danger will Robinson.
I am very eager to see how 2014 pans out all in.

Im still on for one of these but it will have to stretch the 7970 a fair bit as at 1080p I can get away with a ghz 7970 and value before epeen counts to me.
 
Matt Skynner: Corporate Vice President & GM said:
They’re coming in Q4. I can’t reveal a pricepoint but we’re looking at more traditional enthusiast GPU pricepoints. We’re not targeting a $999 single GPU solution like our competition because we believe not a lot of people have that $999. We normally address what we call the ultra-enthusiast segment with a dual-GPU offering like the 7990. So this next-generation line is targeting more of the enthusiast market versus the ultra-enthusiast one
Click to expand...

I know companies don't always follow common sense but here is a thought.

7990 is selling for as low as $599-$649 now. So taking that statement id be surprise if it was priced higher then there dual-gpu solution.

Less than 22hrs to go

BU8yvBXCIAEa18y.jpg:large
 
Lou007 said:
Allow me to put it into perspective for you, in New Zealand a Titan starts at $1890 as does a Gtx690 and a gtx780 will go for about $1350. A Radeon 7990 will set you back a cool $1190. Now with that said can you honestly say a Titan is worth that premium? If the R9 290X is priced at the 7990 price point which if I'm not mistaken is what the suit from AMD said would happen, then why would you even bother with NVIDIA products.
Click to expand...

Sucks to live in middle earth then, move closer to civilization.
 
Tonight at midnight eastern or midnight oceanic time? Is W1zz in Hawaii, or has he had the card and posting a review?


When will I get GTA5 on PC with one of these?
 
I hope this card does away with the biggest thing I hated about Tahiti - the recessed die. Tahiti is the only GPU with the die below the level of the shim, making all but 79xx-specific coolers incompatible with it. You can't use a universal cooler on a 79xx card, and you can't use a 79xx cooler on any other card. I'm using copper shims with my MCW82's, but it's far from an optimal solution for thermal conductivity. For the good of making coolers more compatible, I hope that the Tahiti recessed core was a one time thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Hmm?

Where are the benchmarks of the Titan beating the R9 290X? The Titan beats it in quite a few benchmarks.If this is all ATI has...they are in trouble.:twitch:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top